from the click-it-or-ticket-program-seems-unusually-aggressive dept

We don't have a full recording (i.e., from the beginning of this stop) but it apparently began with a seat-belt violation. By the time the recording begins, the passenger has already been asked to show some ID. He doesn't have any on him, much to the officers' apparent unease. At one point, his hand goes towards the center console, prompting one officer to pull his gun.

The driver (Lisa Mahone) is on the phone with a 911 dispatcher, trying to get some help because she has two cops going after her passenger, one of whom has already pulled a gun. The operator tells her to calm down (and why wouldn't she suggest that -- after all, the driver is "safely" in the hands of law enforcement) but Mahone points out something that should be equally obvious, especially post-Ferguson.

“I am scared. And the man–pulled a gun out. A gun! Why do my kids have to see that,” Mahone told the 9-1-1 operator.

Jamal Jones, the passenger at whom the gun is being pointed makes the same point.

Mr. Jones expressed reluctance to get out of the vehicle due to the officers’ aggressiveness and mentioned that “People are getting shot by the police.”

Also true. Case in point: seatbelt violation greeted with a handful of bullets rather than a citation. But these police officers have apparently gone too far by the point the recording starts. They can't de-escalate, not after a weapon has been unholstered. So, they take it further.

“You’re going to come out of the car one way or another,” the officer menaced. “You want your kids to see you come out through the window?”

Apparently afraid Jones has a gun (because why else would another gun be out), the officer approaches the vehicle with an ax and smashes the window, sending glass flying into the back seat where Mahone's two children are sitting. Almost immediately, Jamal Jones is tasered and dragged from the vehicle.

The seven-year-old begins crying. The fourteen-year-old continues to record with his cellphone.

Now, it's a lawsuit.

Jamal Jones was officially charged with resisting law enforcement and "refusal to aid an officer." The last charge makes no sense. Here's the law itself:

A person who, when ordered by a law enforcement officer to assist the officer in the execution of the officer's duties, knowingly or intentionally, and without a reasonable cause, refuses to assist commits refusal to aid an officer, a Class B misdemeanor.

This is officers piling on charges because they were inconvenienced. Refusing to exit a vehicle may be "resisting law enforcement" but this law isn't supposed to be read as another means of forcing citizens into complete compliance. It's meant to direct citizens to assist law enforcement officers when their help is requested. Being ordered out of a car under threats of violence isn't the same thing as being asked to give an eyewitness statement or use a cell phone to call dispatch/911 for backup. (That this law is on the books is itself questionable, considering it effectively directs citizens to protect and serve police officers who are under no legal obligation to return the favor. It also would seem to put citizens directly in the path of civil lawsuits, should they injure someone or assist officers in violating their rights.)

As the PoliceMisconduct.net story notes, Mahone told police dispatch that she had been "pulled over like a bank robber." Once again, we have to wonder what was actually on the officers' minds when they deployed a spike strip in front of the vehicle they had allegedly pulled over because of seatbelt violations.

The police release said that another officer car with video equipment was called for and “considerable time” had passed. It added that Mahone at one point put the vehicle into drive, which is when they were told about the spike strips.

So, the spike strips preceded the supposed attempt to escape.

Here's what the PD has to say in defense of its officers' actions.

The officers… called for backup and at some point saw Jones’ hands drop to the center console. That’s when police ordered Jones to show his hands and exit the vehicle because of fear for officer safety, according to the release.

Jones also feared for his safety, but had no laws backing up his refusal to exit the vehicle. For two officers "fearing for their safety," they sure move with a lot of confidence.

At what point does the mental math add up to "he might have a gun so I'd better move towards the window armed only with an ax?" Or, for that matter, when Jones asks for a "white shirt" (supervisor), why does the fearful officer (remember a gun has already been pulled at this point) say, "Look at my shoulder, dumbass. I've got bars?" These don't seem to be the actions of officers fearing for their lives. These seem to the actions of officers who are now looking to prove a point after coming up empty in their demands for ID.

The police report also says that 13 minutes had elapsed between the beginning of the stop and the shattering of the window/tasering of Jamal Jones. What were they looking for? They had two people effectively detained for a minor traffic violation and yet deployed a spike strip in front of the vehicle and finally forced their way inside. They then had one person in custody and another cited. With all of this information and time, they still couldn't come up with heftier charges than those thrown at people when cops can't find anything more damning: variations on resisting arrest.

So, you can cut the cops some slack (but not much considering both accused officers have been named in excessive force lawsuits in the past) since they were dealing with an unknown person and the perception of danger. But then what? Here's more of the police statement:

“In general, police officers who make legal traffic stops are allowed to ask passengers inside of a stopped vehicle for identification and to request that they exit a stopped vehicle for the officer’s safety without a requirement of reasonable suspicion,” the release says. “When the passenger displayed movements inside of the stopped vehicle that included placing his hand in places where the officer could not see, officers’ concerns for their safety were heightened.”

The statement claims officers were concerned about multiple movements inside the vehicle and yet they never made an attempt to search it for weapons, drugs or anything else that might "heighten safety concerns." They deploy a spike strip in front a stopped vehicle but don't bother trying to justify this tactic until after the fact.

What it looks like -- and yes, appearances can be deceiving, especially if several minutes elapsed between the beginning of the stop and the violent conclusion -- is another case of officers not knowing how, or just being unwilling to de-escalate a situation when immediate compliance isn't forthcoming. It's at minimum a training issue. But it's also an attitude issue. You want to use a seatbelt violation as an excuse to run names for warrants? Fine. But where do you go when someone has no ID, or refuses to produce it? This is one answer. And it's the wrong one.

from the just-watch-out-for-the-'punchlines'-and-'rimshots' dept

Oddly enough, cops (and lawyers for cops) from halfway around the world are no different than our local variety. This isn't solely an "American" problem. Excessive force is used, the victim complains, and once the court battle ensues, the justifications for the use of force are presented, which often sound completely insane to those not well-versed in the art of defending abusive cops.

Aaron Strahan and Troy Tomlin are on trial accused of assaulting Kevin Spratt by repeatedly tasering him in August 2008.

Sergeant Strahan, who was a Senior Constable at the time, had arrested Mr Spratt in Bayswater...

The officers have denied any wrongdoing and today Sergeant Strahan testified he tasered Mr Spratt because he was acting violently and had broken free from four other officers.

The officer testified he feared that he or somebody else was going to get hurt.

The "somebody else" of course being him or one of his fellow officers. Spratt was tased 13 times, and all of it (including audio) was captured by the station's cameras. Spratt reportedly refused to head into a holding cell for a strip search and was under the influence of drugs and alcohol. So, the officers tased him. And did it again and again while Spratt screamed.

But appearances (and audio) can be deceiving. Much like homeless man Kelly Thomas died of a drug-weakened heart condition instead of by being beaten and subdued by six Fullerton police officers, Mr. Spratt's screams were the result of him being under the influence of something else as well: FUN!

Their lawyer, Karen Vernon, has argued that five of the seven charges against her clients should be thrown out because the evidence does not support the allegations against them.

The Magistrate questioned Ms Vernon about hearing Mr Spratt screaming in anguish, but she said people responded differently to pain, and the screams could have been with joy or laughter.

It seems ridiculous to those of us who haven't read The Joy of Tasing or 1001 Taser Jokes cover-to-cover, but the possibility remains that Spratt might have recoiled in laughter and screamed in abject joy as the four cops repeatedly pulled the trigger on their department-issued Fun Guns.

It seems ridiculous to us. More importantly, it seemed ridiculous to the judge, who dismissed Vernon's imbecilic argument. The case, however, will be allowed to continue. Whether Vernon will still be handling the defense remains to be seen.

Remember kids, electricity is fun, especially when deployed by cops fearing for their safety… or yours. If you're really lucky, the Fun Sticks will make an appearance and you'll be able to tell your friends about the "discussion" you had with the officers and how your sides still hurt from screaming with laughter.

The request to bar nonlethal weapons was made by the ACLU, the Texas Appleseed group, along with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Disability Rights Texas, Texans Care for Children, the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition and the National Alliance on Mental Illness Texas.

"Tragic incidents like this one demonstrate why the state should not grant police free rein to wield weapons in schools for the apparent purpose of maintaining order," said Terri Burke, executive director of the ACLU of Texas. "Schools should be safe havens from this type of police use of force. I hope the commission will heed our call to end use of Tasers and pepper spray."

This attacks part of the problem. These weapons are often deployed carelessly because of their "nonlethal" descriptor. The indiscriminate use of Tasers has resulted in serious injuries and death over the past several years but banning these nonlethal weapons leaves officers employed by schools with few options when the use of force is necessary.

The use of Tasers and pepper spray was defended by Chief C.A. "Chuck" Brawner, of the Spring Branch Independent School District police force, who said nonlethal weapons are necessary so officers don't have to use firearms or nightsticks on unarmed students…

"When you take away the pepper spray and you take away the Taser, what do you have left?" Brawner said. "What if there are several people and you have one officer and they can't control them and they could get away and cause other problems, how do you stop them? When you start taking away other options other than a firearm or a nightstick, what else are you going to use?''

A ban of Tasers and pepper spray would arguably make things worse, leaving officers with the option of beating or shooting students when things get out of hand. This problem needs to be approached from a different direction if schools hope to prevent this sort of thing in the future.

More training is obviously key, and not just training officers on how to deploy nonlethal weapons more "safely," but training them how to resist the impulse to deploy nonlethal weapons when the situation doesn't warrant it. This is much trickier. Fights have occurred in schools for as long as schools have been around. For years, they were broken up by faculty with no training and no weapons, lethal or not. The prevailing belief that only a law enforcement officer can control fighting students is not only wrong, but it's led to on-campus officers handling a great deal of the intervention and discipline that administrators themselves used to handle, often with regrettable results.

This has the effect of turning a common schoolyard fight into a criminal activity, and the response tends to be tailored more towards stopping a street fight than breaking up an altercation between students. If the students aren't using weapons (and they shouldn't be, what with all the other policies in place), then the responding officer shouldn't feel a need to use a weapon either.

If the situation seems to be escalating dangerously, the on-campus officer should have several nonlethal options to deploy before turning the situation deadly. But even the deployment of tasers and pepper spray should be a last resort rather than something used to quickly nullify the perceived threat. The safety of the students should still be paramount. Deploying a Taser simply because someone isn't moving fast enough, being responsive enough or simply "looking threatening" is not the correct response.

I agree with the ACLU's assertion that schools should be a "safe haven" from the use of force, but a ban will have negative consequences, especially if the underlying issues (the use of police officers as a disciplinary tactic; the overuse of force by resource officers) aren't addressed. Instead of a tasing that leads to a coma, we'll have gunshots and blunt force trauma. There's a culture grown from zero tolerance policies and its attendant paranoia that infects administrators and the officers they employ. This needs to addressed before we can start removing nonlethal options.

from the zapped dept

Taser is notoriously defensive about any claims that its supposedly "non-lethal" devices have ever caused anyone to die. Yet, there is a ton of evidence concerning people who have died after being tazed. There are even cases where the company has had courts overrule medical examiners forcing them to change the "cause of death." Now, as Karl Bode points out, an appeals court has ruled that using a Taser can constitute excessive force. The ruling doesn't say that Tasers are automatically excessive force, but suggests that the overall circumstances behind the use need to be taken into consideration, and if the victim is not acting in a threatening way, use of a Taser may be inappropriate and excessive.

from the no,-seriously dept

Stun gun maker Taser is notoriously overprotective of its brand, even pushing judges and medical examiners never to list a Taser as a cause of death. However, this latest, as pointed out by Dave Title has the company going "virtual." Taser is suing Second Life because of virtual Tasers found in the game. Specifically, Taser seems upset that these virtual stun guns are being sold next to pornographic material, which (the company claims) will harm its brand. I'd argue that going around suing everyone probably does a lot more harm.

Of course, Second Life parent corp. Linden Lab doesn't actually make or sell these things, but just provides the platform -- so you might think that the company is protected by safe harbors. Except... one of the little loopholes in safe harbor rules is on trademark claims, which mostly aren't covered by either the DMCA's safe harbors or the CDA's. However, it should be covered by common sense (which is not so common, unfortunately).

If the virtual Tasers actually do infringe on Taser's trademark, then it seems that the liable party should be the user who made/sold them in the first place -- not Linden Lab, the platform creator. On top of that, there's the big question of whether or not this is actually trademark infringement at all. You could make an argument that users might believe that virtual Tasers were somehow endorsed by the company itself, but do such products really "harm" the Taser brand? Again, it seems a lot more harm is being done to the brand by silly lawsuits. And, yes, people will point out (they always do!), that the company has an obligation to protect its marks, but there are better ways to do so than suing.